CHILD LEARNING CENTER, INC. and SPOUSES EDGARDO L. LIMON and SYLVIA S. LIMON vs.

TIMOTHY TAGARIO, G.R. No. 150920, November 25, 2005, AZCUNA, J.

FACTS
Timothy was a Grade IV student at Marymount School, operated by Child Learning Center, Inc. (CLC). On March
5, 1991, between 1 and 2 p.m., Timothy went to the boy’s comfort room at the 3 rd floor of the school building to
answer the call of nature.

He found himself locked inside and unable to get out. Timothy started to panic and so he banged and kicked the
door and yelled several times for help. He decided to open the window to call for help, however, he went right
through and fell down the three stories. Timothy was hospitalized and given medical treatment for serious physical
injuries.

An action under Article 2176 of the Civil Code was filed by Timothy and his parents against CLC, the members of
its Board of Directors, Spouses Edgardo and Sylvia Limon, Alfonso Cruz, Carmelo Narciso and Luningning
Salvador, and the Administrative Officer of Marymount, Ricardo Pilao.

CLC maintained that there was nothing defective about the locking mechanism of the door and that the fall of
Timothy was not due to its fault or negligence.

The court a quo ordered CLC and Spouses Limon to pay respondents, jointly and severally. The trial court
disregarded the corporate fiction of CLC and held the Spouses Limon personally liable because they were the ones
who actually managed the affairs of the CLC.

CA affirmed the decision in toto.

Note: In this tort case, respondents contend that CLC failed to provide precautionary measures to avoid harm and
injury to its students in two instances: (1) failure to fix a defective door knob despite having been notified of the
problem; and (2) failure to install safety grills on the window where Timothy fell from.

1. Whether or not CLC was

negligent for the boy’s accidental
fall and therefore be civilly
liable to answer for the said
negligence.
2. Whether or not the Spouses
Limon should be held personally
liabl
ISSUE(S)
I. Whether CLC was negligent for the boy’s accidental fall and therefore be civilly liable to answer for the said
negligence
II. Whether Spouses Limon should be held personally liable

RULING
I. Yes. The fact that Timothy fell out through the window shows that the door could not be opened from the inside;
hence, res ipsa loquitor applies. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies where:

(1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for
the defendant’s negligence;
(2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management
or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and
(3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person
injured.

Petitioners are clearly answerable for failure to see to it that the doors of their school toilets are at all times in
working condition.
As to the absence of grills on the window, petitioners contend that there was no such requirement under the Building
Code. Nevertheless, the fact is that such window was 1.5 meters from the floor, so it was within reach of a student.
Petitioners, with the due diligence of a good father of the family, should have anticipated that a student, locked in
the toilet by a non-working door, would attempt to use the window to call for help or even to get out.

Further, petitioners’ argument that CLC exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its employees is not decisive. Due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is
applicable where the employer is being held responsible for the acts or omissions of others under Art. 2180 of the
Civil Code. In this case, CLC’s liability is under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, premised on the fact of its own
negligence in not ensuring that all its doors are properly maintained.

Here, the injuries Timothy sustained from the fall were the product of a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any intervening cause, that originated from CLC’s own negligence.

II. No. There was no basis to pierce CLC’s separate corporate personality. To disregard the corporate existence, the
plaintiff must prove:

(1) Control by the individual owners, not mere majority or complete stock ownership, resulting in complete
domination not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to a transaction so that the
corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own;
(2) such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetuate the
violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or a dishonest and unjust act in contravention of the
plaintiff’s legal right; and
(3) the control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.

The absence of these elements prevents piercing the corporate veil. The evidence fails to show that these elements
are present, especially given the fact that plaintiffs’ complaint had pleaded that CLC is a corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of the Philippines.

Petition was partially granted in that Spouses Edgardo and Sylvia Limon are absolved from personal liability.

NOTES
In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence:
(1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose
act he must respond; and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages
incurred.

Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act or omission which causes damage to the right of another giving rise to an
obligation on the part of the actor to repair such damage. Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of
the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand.
Fault requires the execution of a positive act which causes damage to another while negligence consists of the
omission to do acts which result in damage to another.